The Known Knowns*

courtesy of America's last great public philsopher, Donald Rumsfeld.

If you watched the primary elections on television, you didn't learn much. Certainly nothing to help you understand the 2010 mid-terms. And if you consulted Drudge or Huffington Post, which is becoming Drudge-like by the day, you still didn't learn much.

O.K., if you are older than 72 and are an incumbent, your seat is probably in danger. Witness Bob Bennett and Arlen Specter. Watch for the McCain primary next. McCain has some of the problems Specter has. Instead of changing political parties, he's changing his known political positions like a weather vane. In short, like Specter, he's not seen as reliable.

And what about the great teabaggers? Yes, they used the caucus system in Utah to oust Bennett, a primary target since the TARP bailout. But, what about Rand Paul's defeat of the establishment candidate Trey Grayson in Kentucky? Here we have a real circumstance where people have to vote in larger numbers. Rand Paul is the son of the libertarian hero Ron Paul, which generated excitement. He was endorsed by James Dobson and Senator DeMint and the race was supposed to be competitive. He was lionized on Fox News. So he should have generated a tidal wave in Kentucky, a virtual tsunami of Republican and conservative voters. Yes, he won handily over Grayson but he received less votes than the first two Democrats. This in a state that voted for John McCain and Barack Obama was prevented by the Secret Service from campaigning in because of the severity of the death threats.

The conclusion is that Jack Conway, the Democrat, has a real chance to pick up a Senate seat in Kentucky. Some project his possible margin of victory at 100,000. Rand Paul's victory might be analogous to some of the libertarian gains in New Hampshire during the 1990s. The big loser here was Mitch McConnell, who backed Grayson. So far McConnell is batting zero in his endorsements.

Voter Intensity. One way to project the 2010 mid-terms is the intensity of the voter interest. Every poll and pundit tells us that Republicans have vastly more intensity this time around than Democrats. One way to test this is to compare turnouts in a state where both parties have competitive primaries. Here we had Kentucky. The Democratic turnout for a primary was twice that of the Republicans, whose race drew more national and state attention. Not great news for Republicans.

The Only Race That Mattered. For Republicans, the seat held for 36-years by Jack Murtha was the symbolic equivalent of Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Murtha was intensely hated by Republicans for his gift at securing earmarks, his opposition to the Iraq War, and his corruption. The RNC recruited a strong candidate in Tim Burns and contributed more than $1 million to his campaign. This district had gone for Kerry in 04 and then for McCain in 08. Obama's approval rating is 30% and the majority of the district opposes healthcare. The table was set. Tim Burns led in every poll throughout the camapign. The Republicans were going to announce this seat as a symbol that they were taking back the House.

The end result--Murtha's old chief of staff, Mark Critz beat Burns by over 8 points. This makes Republicans 0 for 4 in special House elections since Obama's election. In House special elections, they have lost ten straight. Pundits believe they will pick up a Hawaii seat because the Democrats are divided.

In Pennsylvania, the victory of Joe Sestak over Arlen Specter increases the chances of Democrats holding that Senate seat. Specter, who once had been a Democrat in 1966, was going to lose his primary to Pat Toomey before he switched parties. To his credit, Specter cast pivotal votes for the stimulus package and healthcare reform and funding for mental illness. He had earned the support of Gov. Rendell, President Obama and the DNC. But he lost because Joe Sestak was obviously more dynamic and people in Pennsylvania concluded Specter had become a Democrat for opportunistic reasons. However, the Democratic Party has already prepared anti-Toomey ads to start airing this week. The victory of Joe Sestak did something else--it energized the progressives for the 2010 elections.

In Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln may outlast Halter but she's forced into a run-off now because of Halter's support from progressives and the unions. In a way, this is a challenge to the DLC, whose candidate she was and is. Again, Democratic voter turnout far exceeded the Republicans, who also had a competitive primary.

Teabaggers Versus Progressives. From this small sample,one can conclude a progressive victory actually strenghens the Democrats electability--even in Arkansas, but the teabagger victory in Kentucky actually weakens the Republican chances. And what fun it will be for Kentucky voters to learn Rand Paul is against the war in Afghanistan and wants to repeal the Patriot Act! In short, he really is a chip off the old block. I also liked how his victory party was at a Golf Club and he refused to take the concession call from Trey Grayson. In Utah, the local papers report that while the teabaggers achieved their goal of dumping Bennett, they failed to nominate their candidate. But who would know since the Utah candidate is beyond right as it is.

Of course,the media is broadcasting that President Obama's endorsement of a candidate isn't useful. Charles Krauthammer is trying to spin the loss of incumbents on voter dissatisfaction with Obama. Good try, Charlie. In the Pennsylvania race, it was illogical to believe that Obama shouldn't support Specter. But, he did not campaign for him, which he could have done since he was in the neighboring state and he didn't cut ads for him. Obama did cut ads for Blanche Lincoln. But at the end of the day, he ends up with two Democrats and even if they push him to the Left this can't be considered a referendum on his Administration or a negative.

Progressive blogs are picking up this theme as well as Republicans. Here they talk about Creigh Deeds failed bid for the governor of Virginia. Here again, Obama even offered to campaign for Deeds in Northern Virginia where Deeds was the weakest but he was turned down. In New Jersey, he did campaign for Corzine (I was there) and cut ads. In the state elections, both states always go in the opposite direction as the President in power. So, Obama was fighting against a traditional voting pattern. Now citizens in Virginia and New Jersey are appalled at what they brought on themselves and are actually motivated for 2010.

So, the Obama effect. The jury is still out. What we are seeing is more a return to Tip O'Neill's maxim that "all politics is local". If that's true, then the Republicans will have a difficult time "nationalizing" the House elections as they did in 1994. What Republicans fear is the Obama surge voters--the young, minorities and women. So far we have had no good examples of whether they will come out in the mid-terms. While Washington pundits speculate everyday on how weak or strong the President is, the bottom-line is he's not running until 2012.

Last night showed that Tan Man Boehner shouldn't measure the drapes just yet. For Democrats the night had to be encouraging. I would be uncomfortable if I were at the RNC.